What about the North Pole? Early twentieth century attempts to reach the North Pole were frustrated by the fact that ice coverage was fragile, incomplete, and had gaps full of open water even in the middle of winter, so that travel by dog sled was dangerous and impractical. There was too much ice for it to be safe to sail to the pole in summer, but not enough for it to be safe to dog sled to the pole in winter. Today, the North Pole in the middle of winter is solidly ice bound, and it is quite easy to reach the North Pole by dog sled. So today’s north pole has a lot more ice than it did at the start of the twentieth century. The Northwest passage was difficult and unsafe for wooden ships then, and difficult and unsafe for wooden ships now.

But do we have any proxies for temperature that cover the present day, and also centuries past?

Yes we do, we have Law Dome, a pile of ice and snow in the Antarctic. Drill in Law Dome, and the isotope ratio agrees very well with recently measured present day temperatures of the weather station near Law Dome, unlike most proxies favored by global warmers.

What about surface instrument readings which supposedly show the world has warmed 0.6 degrees in recent decades?

I myself attempted to reconstruct recent global temperatures from surface instrument readings, and the data is unsuited to the task. It contains various sources of systematic error that have to be corrected by ad hoc guessing, and one can make one reasonable set of guesses and use one reasonable procedure, and get one past temperature, or a different reasonable set of guesses and a different reasonable procedure and easily get a result 1.2 degrees different without intentionally torturing the data.

We now have satellites that do provide accurate world wide readings of temperature, and have had them since 1998 (actually a good deal earlier than 1998, but the early satellites had problems that arguably make their readings non comeasurable. Debates about how earlier satellite measurements should be interpreted are difficult to resolve.)

And surprise surprise, since we have had accurate satellite readings of global temperatures, they have been fairly stable, with no obvious trend in any particular direction. There has been plenty of quite dramatic climate change in the past, and there will likely be plenty of quite dramatic climate change in the future, but it is not apparent that we have been having much climate change from nineteen ninety eight to the present.

The only data suitable for detecting small world wide variations of temperature is the satellite data, and the less one is free to torture the satellite data, the less it it indicates that anthropogenic warming is detectable.

By and large, most research is political, created to justify some particular regulation of the permanent government, to reward a friend or destroy and enemy. It is just that global warming attracts extra attention, because the political objectives are so large.

Ozone hole being our fault was disproved when it turned out that it was already starting to close before any action was taken.

These scams always work like this – something is stipulated to be A Problem Unless Action Is Taken, action is taken, things improve (on their own, not because of the action), action is credited; or, things don’t improve, more action is needed, until things improve (on their own).

The problem with GW is that action wasn’t taken for long enough that things visibly improved on their own.

Some people have dedicated their entire lives to lowering “harmful emissions”, so after they successfully fought sulfur and NOx and particulates, which are actually harmful, they moved on to fighting CO2 and O3, which aren’t; and kept fighting NOx long past the point of diminishing returns (hence VW scandal).

Really, trying to compare any contemporary data with past data is apples and oranges. Modern reporting stations are in the middle of vast urban sprawl which didn’t exist fifty years ago, plus any data recorded before about 1960 or so was done by someone squinting at a mercury thermometer and writing numbers in pencil.

This is a really important point. What’s the resolution of a mercury thermometer again? How do we correct for parallax errors, or laziness, or someone writing something in so they don’t have to get up and take a look?

My father-in-law was stationed on the DEW (Distant Early Warning) Line in the 1960s, up in the far north of Canada. Part of his job was to go outside in the arctic winter several times a day to record the temperature. Understandably, he performed his task with the utmost haste so he could get back inside out of the damnable cold. Imagine his reaction if you’d told him that fifty years hence, his half-assed measurements would be contributing to worldwide hysteria over decimal-point changes in “global temperature”.

As I have said elsewhere, I have been suspicious of “science” ever since I was part of it, in undergrad and grad school. The public in general has no idea that “science” consists of data “observed” (very much in quotation marks) and recorded by grad students who are pretty sloppy and un-incented to care, because they’re in a hurry to get out of the office and meet their evening’s date.

those “someones” recording data in those days were honest folks with no agenda other than their self-respect for a job done right in the interest of actual real scientific data gathering. mercury thermometers were (and are) highly accurate instruments not subject to electronic glitches, or “adjustments” made to “compensate” for readings not meeting the required dataset for a narrative.

I have been skeptical from the beginning, theres so many reasons. Lorenz developed the chaos theory/ butterfly effect trying to model weather on computers. They have been caught lying and exaggerating, they use propaganda techniques to gain acceptance [ appeals to authority and words like denier,wrong predictions, etc.
However it could still be happening. My brother a biologist and I had a very long conversation about this the other night, hes adament what skeptics there were in the scientific community have all converted, he points out falsifying data is a career killer in science.Of course I found this unconvincing while probably true to an extent doesnt prove a thing. However it is odd by this time there is really so little skepticism in the scientific community, oh sure they are all Warren voters,sure some science branches are not even science. Still even something like 911 has a huge skeptical community of architects and engineers.My brother claims to see evidence in his work all the time,I point out hes been taught global warming is fact in university and so when he sees evidence of climate change he ascribes it to “Climate Change” So most scientists believing this is meaningless, however there must be enough scientists in the fields that matter to have developed a skeptical opposition of some note by now. If not and if it is not happening science is far more degenerate than imaginable.